8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mickens v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2019But while these rules offer general guidelines to avoid a potentially-broad range of conflicts, the “[b]reach of an ethical standard does not necessarily make out a denial of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of assistance of counsel.” Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 176 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
National Contracting Co. v. Hudson River Water Power Co.green1 sentence2009See Roth v. State, 158 Ind. 242 , 63 N.E. 460, 464 (1902) ("[Flor cause ... necessarily and reasonably implies that the cause intended is to be some dereliction or general neglect of duty, or some delinquency affecting the general character of the officer, or his fitness for holding the office, or his incapacity to discharge the duties thereof."); see also McCallister v. Priest, 422 S.W.2d 650, 657 (Mo.1968) (" 'For cause' means legal cause. | 1 | 1 |
McCallister v. Priestgreen1 sentence2009See Roth v. State, 158 Ind. 242 , 63 N.E. 460, 464 (1902) ("[Flor cause ... necessarily and reasonably implies that the cause intended is to be some dereliction or general neglect of duty, or some delinquency affecting the general character of the officer, or his fitness for holding the office, or his incapacity to discharge the duties thereof."); see also McCallister v. Priest, 422 S.W.2d 650, 657 (Mo.1968) (" 'For cause' means legal cause. | 1 | 1 |
Roth v. State ex rel. Kurtzgreen1 sentence2009See Roth v. State, 158 Ind. 242 , 63 N.E. 460, 464 (1902) ("[Flor cause ... necessarily and reasonably implies that the cause intended is to be some dereliction or general neglect of duty, or some delinquency affecting the general character of the officer, or his fitness for holding the office, or his incapacity to discharge the duties thereof."); see also McCallister v. Priest, 422 S.W.2d 650, 657 (Mo.1968) (" 'For cause' means legal cause. | 1 | 1 |
Housing Authority v. Dorseygreen2 sentences1997Moreover, the ethical standard announced in the Commission’s rules reflects the common law principle that a public official may not use his official power to further his or her own interests, Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson, 656 N.E.2d 1172, 1175 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (citing Bullock v. Robison, 176 Ind. 198 , 93 N.E. 998, 1001 (1911)), because “a person cannot serve two masters at the same time and the public interest should not be entrusted to an official who has a pecuniary, personal or private interest which is or may be in conflict with the public interest.” Id. (citing Housing Auth. of 1997Moreover, the ethical standard announced in the Commission’s rules reflects the common law principle that a public official may not use his official power to further his or her own interests, Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson, 656 N.E.2d 1172, 1175 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (citing Bullock v. Robison, 176 Ind. 198 , 93 N.E. 998, 1001 (1911)), because “a person cannot serve two masters at the same time and the public interest should not be entrusted to an official who has a pecuniary, personal or private interest which is or may be in conflict with the public interest.” Id. (citing Housing Auth. of | 1 | 1 |
Indiana State Ethics Commission v. Nelsongreen1 sentence1997Moreover, the ethical standard announced in the Commission’s rules reflects the common law principle that a public official may not use his official power to further his or her own interests, Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson, 656 N.E.2d 1172, 1175 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (citing Bullock v. Robison, 176 Ind. 198 , 93 N.E. 998, 1001 (1911)), because “a person cannot serve two masters at the same time and the public interest should not be entrusted to an official who has a pecuniary, personal or private interest which is or may be in conflict with the public interest.” Id. (citing Housing Auth. of | 1 | 1 |
Bullock v. Robisongreen2 sentences1997Moreover, the ethical standard announced in the Commission’s rules reflects the common law principle that a public official may not use his official power to further his or her own interests, Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson, 656 N.E.2d 1172, 1175 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (citing Bullock v. Robison, 176 Ind. 198 , 93 N.E. 998, 1001 (1911)), because “a person cannot serve two masters at the same time and the public interest should not be entrusted to an official who has a pecuniary, personal or private interest which is or may be in conflict with the public interest.” Id. (citing Housing Auth. of 1997Moreover, the ethical standard announced in the Commission’s rules reflects the common law principle that a public official may not use his official power to further his or her own interests, Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson, 656 N.E.2d 1172, 1175 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (citing Bullock v. Robison, 176 Ind. 198 , 93 N.E. 998, 1001 (1911)), because “a person cannot serve two masters at the same time and the public interest should not be entrusted to an official who has a pecuniary, personal or private interest which is or may be in conflict with the public interest.” Id. (citing Housing Auth. of | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Noel
green
2 sentences1977In re Wood, (1976) 265 Ind. 616 , 358 N.E.2d 128 ; In re Noel, (1976) 265 Ind. 98 , 350 N.E.2d 623 ; In re Lee, (1974) 262 Ind. 439 , 317 N.E.2d 444 . 1977In re Wood, (1976) 265 Ind. 616 , 358 N.E.2d 128 ; In re Noel, (1976) 265 Ind. 98 , 350 N.E.2d 623 ; In re Lee, (1974) 262 Ind. 439 , 317 N.E.2d 444 . | 2 | 1977–1977 |
In the Matter of Wood
green
2 sentences1977In re Wood, (1976) 265 Ind. 616 , 358 N.E.2d 128 ; In re Noel, (1976) 265 Ind. 98 , 350 N.E.2d 623 ; In re Lee, (1974) 262 Ind. 439 , 317 N.E.2d 444 . 1977In re Wood, (1976) 265 Ind. 616 , 358 N.E.2d 128 ; In re Noel, (1976) 265 Ind. 98 , 350 N.E.2d 623 ; In re Lee, (1974) 262 Ind. 439 , 317 N.E.2d 444 . | 2 | 1977–1977 |
In Re Lee
green
2 sentences1977In re Wood, (1976) 265 Ind. 616 , 358 N.E.2d 128 ; In re Noel, (1976) 265 Ind. 98 , 350 N.E.2d 623 ; In re Lee, (1974) 262 Ind. 439 , 317 N.E.2d 444 . 1977In re Wood, (1976) 265 Ind. 616 , 358 N.E.2d 128 ; In re Noel, (1976) 265 Ind. 98 , 350 N.E.2d 623 ; In re Lee, (1974) 262 Ind. 439 , 317 N.E.2d 444 . | 2 | 1977–1977 |
Wright v. State
green
1 sentence2019Indiana Supreme Court | Case Nos. 22S00-1601-PD-00009, 22S00-1608-PD-00411 | Oct. 24, 2019 Page 36 of 40 denied; Wright v. State, 436 N.E.2d 335 , 338–40 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (noting the Sixth Amendment requires the state to “respect the independence of the public defender” and the code of professional responsibility requires attorneys to resist outside pressure, even from third parties who pay for the defendant’s representation). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hueck v. State
green
1 sentence2009The law firm ignored numerous cases that state: "As a general rule, information regarding a client's attorney fees is not protected by the attorney-client privilege because the payment of fees is not considered a confidential communication between attorney and client." Hueck v. State, 590 N.E.2d 581 (Ind.App. 1 Dist.1992). 5. ... [UJnder the factual situation as presented in this cause, the Court affirms its prior ruling that [Patri-cial has standing and the Court retains jurisdiction to permit [Patricia] to request an accounting from the law firm. 6.That the law firm contends that they are no | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Matter of Maley
green
2 sentences2007In In re Maley, 674 N.E.2d 544 (Ind.1996), this Court imposed a public reprimand on an attorney who retained a fee in excess of the fee awarded to him by the Worker's Compensation Board according to presumptive limits established by Indiana Worker's Compensation regulations. 2007In In re Maley, 674 N.E.2d 544 (Ind.1996), this Court imposed a public reprimand on an attorney who retained a fee in excess of the fee awarded to him by the Worker’s Compensation Board according to presumptive limits established by Indiana Worker’s Compensation regulations. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
O'Reilly v. United States
green
1 sentence1997Moreover, the ethical standard announced in the Commission’s rules reflects the common law principle that a public official may not use his official power to further his or her own interests, Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson, 656 N.E.2d 1172, 1175 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (citing Bullock v. Robison, 176 Ind. 198 , 93 N.E. 998, 1001 (1911)), because “a person cannot serve two masters at the same time and the public interest should not be entrusted to an official who has a pecuniary, personal or private interest which is or may be in conflict with the public interest.” Id. (citing Housing Auth. of | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Housing Authority of New Haven v. Dorsey
green
1 sentence1997Moreover, the ethical standard announced in the Commission’s rules reflects the common law principle that a public official may not use his official power to further his or her own interests, Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson, 656 N.E.2d 1172, 1175 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (citing Bullock v. Robison, 176 Ind. 198 , 93 N.E. 998, 1001 (1911)), because “a person cannot serve two masters at the same time and the public interest should not be entrusted to an official who has a pecuniary, personal or private interest which is or may be in conflict with the public interest.” Id. (citing Housing Auth. of | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In the Matter of Tabak
neutral
2 sentences1978In re Vincent, (1978) 268 Ind. 101 , 374 N.E.2d 40 ; In re Tabak, (1977) 266 Ind. 271 , 362 N.E.2d 475 ; In re Murray, (1977) 266 Ind. 221 , 362 N.E.2d 128 . 1978In re Vincent, (1978) 268 Ind. 101 , 374 N.E.2d 40 ; In re Tabak, (1977) 266 Ind. 271 , 362 N.E.2d 475 ; In re Murray, (1977) 266 Ind. 221 , 362 N.E.2d 128 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
In the Matter of Murray
green
2 sentences1978In re Vincent, (1978) 268 Ind. 101 , 374 N.E.2d 40 ; In re Tabak, (1977) 266 Ind. 271 , 362 N.E.2d 475 ; In re Murray, (1977) 266 Ind. 221 , 362 N.E.2d 128 . 1978In re Vincent, (1978) 268 Ind. 101 , 374 N.E.2d 40 ; In re Tabak, (1977) 266 Ind. 271 , 362 N.E.2d 475 ; In re Murray, (1977) 266 Ind. 221 , 362 N.E.2d 128 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
In the Matter of Vincent
green
2 sentences1978In re Vincent, (1978) 268 Ind. 101 , 374 N.E.2d 40 ; In re Tabak, (1977) 266 Ind. 271 , 362 N.E.2d 475 ; In re Murray, (1977) 266 Ind. 221 , 362 N.E.2d 128 . 1978In re Vincent, (1978) 268 Ind. 101 , 374 N.E.2d 40 ; In re Tabak, (1977) 266 Ind. 271 , 362 N.E.2d 475 ; In re Murray, (1977) 266 Ind. 221 , 362 N.E.2d 128 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.